rue_d_etropal Posted July 10, 2015 Share Posted July 10, 2015 The Shapeways website is not very user friendly when there are a lot of items, so I am writing my own front end. Some of the OO front end is now live(uploaded less than an hour ago). There is a link to the Shapeways website for any items not on front end yet. It is a bit clunky at the moment, but there is a lot of code to write, and once I have got through it I can tidy things up. As for code 75, I did consider it and did do some designs, but the thickness of 3D printed plastic means it is pretty close to not being printable, unless you want the wheels to run on the plastic not the rail. Also, you can not actually see the whole rail(and some is covered up anyway). I talked to an experience P4/EM gauge modeller last year about this, and he was happy with code 100 on my wagon turntables. I have also been talking to others who build their own tramway track using code 75, and they see no problem with my track using code 100. I am mainly aiming at those who prefer something close to what they use in OO, ie code 100, not those who want to build everything themselves. Amazingly there are surprisingly few dockyard type layouts with inset track. If I was to start similar track in code 75, then it would increase size of my e-shop even more. It is possible to file down outer edge of trail to make it thinner if someone is bothered about the look, Even joining code 100 to code 75 is easy with the help of a file, or peco code75/100 rail joiners. I started on the larger scales for the front end as there were fewer items in each section, and am working down to the Z gauge items. Next on list is the mixed gauge OO(OO9 and OO12) then the 12mm and 9mm gauges, a N gauge items and then the Z gauge. I will group up some of the other odd ones (EM and 21mm gauge), and then go back to see what is missing. I had a lot of items done but not live, and it is a nightmare tracking them down in what is now a badly bodged Shapeways database. Hopefully it will be a lot easier finding things via my new front end code. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Reichert Posted July 11, 2015 Share Posted July 11, 2015 I must admit, I've never had any of the problems mentioned. My running is always 100% OK. One aspect of inlaying the centre of track, and getting bad running, that the flange ways typically need to be much wider than the specification for crossing (frog) flange ways. That specification expects the inside of the wheels to be rubbing against the centre material as though it is a check rail. And rubbing against plastic or plaster is of course really bad for running. It doesn't matter if the material on the outside is not higher than the rail, if the inside of the wheels are climbing against the centre material, no matter what height it is. Andy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CourthsVeil Posted July 11, 2015 Author Share Posted July 11, 2015 Andy, thanks for the comment.Your inlaid track really looks the part! Of course you are right re. the width of the flange ways at inlaid track and the bad effect of plastic/plaster. This is not my problem, since I do not lay paving between the rails (see my post no 42 above) – for this very reason. I suppose you use NEM-conform rolling stock (happy people over there in the US). Much of the stock you get here in Germany still has rather coarse wheels, i.e. pizza cutters combined with thick tyres*), esp. if it is older (i.e. “ebayed”) stuff – see here (both H0): Left=US 0-6-0 shunter (Bachmann Sp.), right="Werkslok Anna" (Fleischmann). What a difference… You see the problem with the latter when the material on the outside in fact is higher than the rail. Armin *) German manufacturers as well as their customers are really hard to convince that fine wheels do run well on code 83… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CourthsVeil Posted August 12, 2015 Author Share Posted August 12, 2015 Hi all. After what seems ages, I'm back on here! I've been quiet because I've not done much other than some maintenance and repairs and trying new buildings… But I promise: when the big heat is gone (they say: by Saterday…), I will be able to make some meaningful progress. Then I will come back… Armin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Did you letter the Valvoline tanker the wrong way round? Or did you letter the open wagon the wrong way round AND upload a mirror image of the photo? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CourthsVeil Posted August 12, 2015 Author Share Posted August 12, 2015 HaHa John, got me…! No, BOTH are lettered correctly, just the tanker photoshopped in so that the couplings are as near as possible, just for comparison. The "roof" in the background indicates the seam. Armin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted August 12, 2015 Share Posted August 12, 2015 Surely Photoshopping isn't easier than picking up a wagon and turning it round before you take a photo!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CourthsVeil Posted August 12, 2015 Author Share Posted August 12, 2015 Surely searching for the camera, setting it up, making a photo (with two wagons) and preparing the image in IrfanView for RMWeb isn't easier than just grabbing two already made photos (of single wagons) and merging them… Here a pic showing another replacement for an S&W coupling – in this case I did it because there's no room to attach the latter: Armin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 47137 Posted August 16, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 16, 2015 Laying cobbles To quote the opening post of this thread: “Not that I’m building a layout – I’m just fiddling around a bit… It is also an excuse to try out new techniques and skills, and one of these is making convincing hardstanding as well as a small ferry (or lighter).” So I’m about to get to grips with covering the lower part with “hardstanding” – in this case it’s cobbles. . . . Your comments and suggestions are welcome. I am having a play with a material called "Fab Foam" for inset track. This is 2 mm thick foam sold for craft activities. It comes in several bright colours, the only subdued colour I can find is grey. If you set up some rails to contain the infill material (I must admit I soldered up my own track) and the track has a gentle curve, you can cut a straight strip of the foam and it will curve to fit the space. This is easier than cutting a curved edge to match the rails. Also, the foam will hold itself in place so you can lift it out for maintenance. I haven't tried painting it yet. In the photo I have put the flexi curve to show how I get the edge for the roadway. The foam is very much experimental, but so far it seems to work. I want to try glueing the "cobbles foam" on top of the "Fab Foam". - Richard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CourthsVeil Posted August 16, 2015 Author Share Posted August 16, 2015 Thanks, Richard. I wish you the very best with your foam experiment. … I'm deliberating earnestly to rip the cobbled paving off and replace it by plain old plaster to represent concrete plates. Reason for this re-vision is that the cobbles nearest the rails at some places tend to rise above rail head level and thus to hamper some of my little locos. Whereas plaster (other than the foam cobbles) easily can be thinned down to the required level and thus kept out of the way. Now, where's that silly Moltofill packet… and that really broad trowel ? Finally I got round to do some work on the layout this week. I ripped the cobbled foam off (well, most of it - see below), thinned the underlying card, mixed some household plaster and – finally – spread it over the back digon area: And after sanding it : Then I tried how my locos do it with the new hardstanding. Result: no more obstacles, no stalling. No surprise since the concrete now is flush with the rail – thanks careful sanding. Sigh ! Next part: Now its drying time again, a modelers biggest enemy... As to ripping off the cobbles: the Domestic Port Authority persuaded me to leave the leftmost part of it as it is ("looks so nice…"). So it remains and is waiting for weathering as well as the concrete is awaiting its fate. More to come, watch this topic. Always grateful for comments. Regards Armin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rue_d_etropal Posted August 16, 2015 Share Posted August 16, 2015 Are you leaving the bit between the rails clear? I have found that having the surface fractionally lower than the rail helps even more. Makes it easier to clean track. I have also found a wonderful brown plaster here in UK, so by Wilkinsons as a wood filler. It is non solvent based(often a problem with wood fillers), and dries(eventually) very hard. Big advantage is that when it gets scratched it does not glow white! Of course I would still probably recommend my own track system, I have written new front end to Shapeways e-shop and have templates which can be printed off(free). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CourthsVeil Posted August 17, 2015 Author Share Posted August 17, 2015 Are you leaving the bit between the rails clear? See above post #42! ... Of course I would still probably recommend my own track system, I have written new front end to Shapeways e-shop and have templates which can be printed off(free). Would you please stop this – there are other, more appropriate places for advertising. Armin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CourthsVeil Posted August 23, 2015 Author Share Posted August 23, 2015 Not so much to report today. Finished hardstanding (i.e.: planed it with wet&dry etc.), further trial runs over the newly treated tracks, had to remove a lot of superfluous plaster. Next will be weathering the plaster area. So I thought… But life sometimes plays another story than we envisage! During the trial runs I discovered that the (until last week electrified) frog down right had become dead. Most locos now stop there. Which means: Grande Catastrophe – because the point is fully embedded in ballast as well as in plaster. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Armin (a bit depressed…) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter220950 Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 But life sometimes plays another story than we envisage! During the trial runs I discovered that the (until last week electrified) frog down right had become dead. Most locos now stop there. Which means: Grande Catastrophe – because the point is fully embedded in ballast as well as in plaster. Comments and suggestions are welcome. Armin (a bit depressed…) Armin, Not sure whar access you have got to the track, you say it's embedded in ballast, that would suggest there are still some sleepers showing? If so I have just tried out a solution on an old piece of 00 track, (Isn't it small!) I cut off a chair Drilled a hole in the sleeper bent a piece of brass wire threaded it into the hole soldered it and filed it down then put a bit of paint on and it's barely visible. I think it could be done on either side of the rail and be filed down to allow a wheel to pass over it. - Took about ten minutes, and could be done much more neatly to make it less noticeable, you could then wire up the protruding brass rod under the board. If you have fully buried track I think you will have to dig a bit of the plaster out, unfortunately. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CourthsVeil Posted August 24, 2015 Author Share Posted August 24, 2015 Thanks, Peter, for this advice. Really helpful! In my case, however, the frog (which must be powered) is quite short – as indicated by the circle here: The two red lines mark the gaps between frog and the inner heel rails. In addition it has no chair to be replaced by the new dropper (it is a rather simple Tillig product). Sothe question is: where to place the dropper? But your idea still is valid and it may well be that I can follow it. We will see… Armin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 47137 Posted August 24, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 24, 2015 Maybe - drill a 1 mm or so hole vertically downwards, tight up against the "bottom" of the vee. Drop down a length of stiff copper wire, and solder onto the back of both vee rails. Then trim flush on top. - Richard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CourthsVeil Posted August 24, 2015 Author Share Posted August 24, 2015 Richard, thanks! I think that will be the way… Armin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter220950 Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 In addition it has no chair to be replaced by the new dropper (it is a rather simple Tillig product). Sothe question is: where to place the dropper? But your idea still is valid and it may well be that I can follow it. We will see… Armin I was only using the sleepering as a means to hide the brass connection, there is no reason why you can't just solder the dropper anywhere on the side of the rail, it won't matter so much on the outside, but on the inside you may have problems with clearing the wheel flanges. My reasoning was that it was easier to drill and thread a solid brass wire down through the board than try to thread and solder loose stranded wire. - Good luck with the repairs. A final thought, if none of the solutions fit you could solder the adjacent rail to the frog, then re-cut further along, to give a longer frog rail and more room to work with. Peter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CourthsVeil Posted August 24, 2015 Author Share Posted August 24, 2015 I was only using the sleepering as a means to hide the brass connection, ... Understood and appreciated, Peter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rue_d_etropal Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Before you start soldering, it might be worth while trying some soldering glue. I have got some for this type of fix, but have not needed to use it myself (yet!). I tend to solder extra wires on Peco points to get power direct , not through point blades. In the past I have found that something will go wrong in most difficult place to access. On one of my current projects I am using some old Fleischmann points. I have had to add extra wires as some of the internal contacts don't seem to work properly, especially when running against sprung point blades. As it is a circular layout it is possible to get round some of these problems, but just when you think it is OK, and you have added the scenery, it decides to cause another problem. Luckily it is a passing loop, so no slow moving shunting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CourthsVeil Posted August 29, 2015 Author Share Posted August 29, 2015 … life sometimes plays another story than we envisage! During the trial runs I discovered that the (until last week electrified) frog down right had become dead. Most locos now stop there. Which means: Grande Catastrophe – because the point is fully embedded in ballast as well as in plaster. … Armin (a bit depressed) Fortunately I'm no longer depressed; I revitalized my electrofrog. And it was not at all difficult: instead of lifting the whole point (Tillig #82321)… It is easy to pull the vee out of the point (no 1). This item is of an (to me) unknown material, maybe whitemetal. Nevertheless, a little blob of flux paste (“Lötfett”) plus a hefty blob of heat quickly made the solder flow and immerse the wire (nos 2&3). Which I thereafter secured with a bit of CA glue (perhaps not needed). Then, as suggested by Peter, I drilled a hole quite near the vee’s base right through the ballast, got the dropper down (no 4)… Do you see anything disturbing your aesthetic senses? Me not! Attaching that to the old dropper underneath (which still comes from the DPDT switch) was the easiest task. Trial runs: all in order again. Phew !!! Now back to “regular” tasks*): make the hardstanding look like concrete and well worn, finish the buildings and embed them, etc. etc. Comments and a lot of applause quite welcome Regards Armin *) I did not only do this repair since my last post, but several – long overdue – things: attach further couplings to several locos (see post #58), design other buildings, delight in several Haydn symphonies… Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rue_d_etropal Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 So that is what they look like,. Phil mentioned Tillig points in his latest article. Another reason to give them a miss. Electrofrog points don't make my models run any better, and add another level of complexity. Main problems I have had with my points is contact between point blade and rest of point not working properly. These are old Fleischmann points, but as the blades get slightly loose they lose contact.. Only using them because I want sprung points for a passing loop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CourthsVeil Posted August 29, 2015 Author Share Posted August 29, 2015 … Tillig points … Another reason to give them a miss. Electrofrog points don't make my models run any better, and add another level of complexity. Main problems I have had with my points is contact between point blade and rest of point not working properly. … Not so convincing this, I'm afraid. My small locos are really unhappy with isolated frogs. Plus I don't see another level of complexity. Indeed it is just a matter of minutes to perform the steps described in my thread there. The result is: 1) vee powered (without any contact problems you mentioned) 2) and always with correct polarity 3) no short possible between blade and adjacent stock rails due to thick pizza cutters 4) unselected heel track automatically shut off, so no short possible there. After this is done and the three droppers correctly soldered to the point switch, I have a really, really troublefree point. I have to admit that this Tillig product*) is a simple one and that esp. the vee is rather crude. This is – I think – due to the still prevailing preference of very many German modellers for the a.m. old fashioned wheels which are forgiving badly laid and upkept track. My reasoning for choosing them is laid out in the above linked post. And as long as I am happy with them… Regards Armin *) it is NOT part of their Elite line of tracks! Rather it is called Standard. Btw: who is Phil ??? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium 47137 Posted August 29, 2015 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 29, 2015 Hope that's enough applause - but some relief to know it is fixed. Good. - - For finishing the hardstanding - one of the most pleasing "concrete" colours I have come across is in the Scalescenes range. It should be possible to mix some paint up to similar shades - there are some reasonable-sized areas of concrete ground surface in their free download for a low relief factory (usual disclaimer). When you have the concrete colour, will you paint the foam cobbles to tone them to match? I ask because I have a sheet of the same embossed foam cobbles and I think I'll need to tone them down a little when I use them. - Richard. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CourthsVeil Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 Hope that's enough applause - but some relief to know it is fixed. Good. Yeah, that's good !! Thank you !!! As to the colouring of the hardstanding: just washes – very light washes – differing shades & hues… And, yes, the remaining cobbles will be dry brushed. Tried that already and it works. Regards Armin edit: Speaking of concrete. For instance, an earlier project of mine – a sub-micro diorama – came out with this: klick me! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.